[meta-xilinx] failure : SD to u-boot SPL to u-boot on zcu102-zynqmp

[Nathan Rossi]

On 18 March 2017 at 02:45, Jean-Francois Dagenais
<jeff.dagenais at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 03:16, Nathan Rossi <nathan at nathanrossi.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 March 2017 at 05:27, Jean-Francois Dagenais
>> <jeff.dagenais at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it ok for me not to care about the PMU FW or ATF at this point of our
>>> development?
>>
>> For PMU Firmware, sure you can probably ignore it and use the
>> xilinx-v2016.4 kernel and u-boot. ATF is needed though since a psci
>> implementation is needed that can handle cpu bringup.
>
> Ok, help me make sure I understand from having read your whole answer. I only
> need to provide an alternate (TBD) PMU FW because I am using u-boot-xlnx/master
> and something was added since u-boot xilinx-v2016.4 that requires it?

Not alternate, since given the error you have not loaded any pmu
firmware. But yes, this is only relevant because you are using
u-boot-xlnx master.

The commit that introduced the requirement is
https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/e047c5ad3db3cc2fa8c53a4a663ac8a256159b0e

>
> And did you just misprint "xilinx-v2016.4 kernel" instead of "u-boot"?

Well I was not sure if you were also using the master branch of
linux-xlnx or not, but linux-xlnx master has the same requirements for
PMUFW.

>
> Did you mean I should use u-boot (upstream) instead of u-boot-xlnx?

No you will want to use u-boot-xlnx at the moment. But Michal might be
able to give you a better status on using zcu102 with upstream u-boot.

>
> You can tell I am confused! It'll get better within a few weeks! ;) Until
> then, please put more info that's not too much trouble. :)
>
>> It is ok for the U-Boot build to succeed without a psu_init_gpl, since
>> it is common to use FSBL as a loader. Which is normally just loading
>> the full U-Boot so SPL is not needed in that case. But the meta-xilinx
>> layer does have a hard fail (for zynq at least, but will be for zynqmp
>> too) if you try to build/deploy SPL (SPL_BINARY = "spl/boot.bin" is
>> set) and nothing is providing the ps*_init_gpl files.
>
> I'm no expert on u-boot (yet ;) but I think this smells trouble. Maybe not for
> meta-xilinx supported builds, but for integrators such as myself and all the
> other OEMs which will use meta-xilinx as a base.
>
> I understand about an SPL-less build. Perhaps the Makefile could inspect
> CONFIG_SPL_BUILD and fail if the psu_init_gpl files aren't found. You don't get
> very far with a "psu_init"-less SPL, but much better if failure occurs at build
> time. I can can attempt a patch in board/xilinx/zynqmp/Makefile unless you think
> its a bad idea.

I think its probably a good idea to have it fail if the ps*_init files
are missing, this probably would apply to zynq as well. But this is
something that would best be discussed on the u-boot list? or maybe
Michal can chime in here too?

>
>>
>> On a side note, you should be able to just copy the psu_init_gpl files
>> from master u-boot-xlnx and use them in the xilinx-v2016.4 version
>> (which doesn't have the pmufw requirements).
>
> My first tries were with u-boot-xlnx (v2016.4) and the SPL almost didn't start
> at all. It may be related to 7d355473f34a (mmc: sdhci: zynqmp: Add support of
> SD3.0) not being there yet. I did not try exactly your idea though. I will get
> to it soon if nothing else works.
>
> Can I not change something in the defconfig to remove the extra PMUFW dependency?

You might be able to hack around it, but I wouldn't recommend going
down that path.

Regards,
Nathan